Jump to content
Hex2

The Story now Is; The Senate R's are considering Removing Trumpos

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Squatchman said:

  Hell ain't a bad place to be.

 When I get there you will have been there for about 30 years or more.

Since I worship the devil I get to whiz in your face for eternity once I arrive.

Until then Ghengis Kahn will teach you how to ride a horse before he feeds you to his.

 See you there cowboy.

 

 

 

Genghis??

Did you say Genghis Khan??

Sir, (and I use the term loosely)

I may know about him than him you do.

 

"The greatest pleasure in Iife is to scatter your enemies and drive them before you.

To conquer all is his warriors and take his food, land, horses and cattle. 

And....to take his wives and daughters for your concubines".

                                                                                          Genghis Khan, Chieftain of the Mongol Empire.

                                                                                          around 1200 A.D.

 

"The Earth is the Lord's".  (about Genghis Khan).

                                             A book by The Great Lady Arthur, Taylor Caldwell.  She was the great writer

                                             who wrote "The Captains and the KIngs". 

                                             I have read both.  

 

Oh,....one thing.  Next time, try to spell his name right...…....…….(loser)…………..🤠..🥃.

                                             

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Masturbatory progressive delusions are getting more fanciful. Melina is planning to divorce Trump and Barron is changing her name to Brenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, slideman said:

Bimbos

Are you saying most women are bimbos? Their attraction to the bulge of a wallet is genetic, evolutionary. Rich men are best able to provide a secure setting for them to raise their brood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republican Party should be made history by the voters in 2020. 

They gave us the Bush/Cheney atrocity, who lied us into the Iraq War, and led to hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent people, and trillions $$$ of taxpayer money wasted on an unnecessary war.

Then the GOP gave us Trump. A criminal and traitor, who is Putin's puppet, and is wrecking America's budgets, environment, alliances, and economy!!!

 

79928335_2935185046494072_56431734044135 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, neilcar said:

and yet I do not seem to be all that concerned … 

 

You have never had it better than living in the U.S. today... 

 

Stock Market hits a new high … again and again, the future looks bright, troops are coming home and finding there are jobs for them...

 

and the Dems are finding out that it isn't so bad living with a Republican President … lol

All based on a BORROW AND SPEND economy,

that will crash when the rest of the world decides not to lend anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hex2 said:

The story is circulating that Several Senators will lose their seats if they continue to back Trumpos.

Their quandary now is shall they just vote to remove him now or lose their seats backing the IMPOTUS?

If they remove him they can also be guaranteed to keep their seats.

If they remove him now IMPOTUS wont have a say in any primary fight, he'll be gone.

 

Another reason Moscow Mitch doesn't want a Senate trial.

The odds are growing against the IMPOTUS keeping his job

Moscow and Limpsy Graham very well not survive the coming vote anyway, both race are a statistical tie now.

 

Meadows is the latest rat to flee the grungy ship of Trumpos.

I remember when the story was Russian collusion. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, slideman said:

The story is still Russian collusion. Do I have to post it again?

Yes. Read your fellow lefties comments that are STILL parroting that long dead talking point. 

 

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

 

TOP LEGAL NEWS OF THE WEEK

Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I. Summary of Major Findings

The redacted Mueller Report documents a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. The Report documents the following actions (each of which is analyzed in detail in Part II):

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

During the course of 2016, Trump Campaign associates failed to report any of the Russian/WikiLeaks overtures to federal law enforcement, publicly denied any contacts with Russians/WikiLeaks, and actively encouraged the public to doubt that Russia was behind the hacking and distribution of stolen emails.

One qualification before proceeding to the analysis in Part II: a significant amount of relevant information was unavailable to Mueller due to four factors. First, as the Report states, “several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office,” and “those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.” Second, President Trump’s interference in the investigation also appears to have stymied the investigation. A key example is Paul Manafort’s failure to cooperate with the Special Counsel because he was apparently led to believe that President Trump would pardon him. Third, some individuals used encrypted communications or deleted their communications. Fourth, some of the individuals who “cooperated” with the investigation (e.g., Steve Bannon) appear to have been deceptive or not fully forthcoming in their dealings with the Special Counsel. Several individuals failed to recall the content of important conversations with Trump or other Campaign associates. The Report states, “Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missed the thread, but who are these Republicans who are "guaranteed" re-election if they vote to impeach?

Also, if the senate stabs Trump in the back on this, your country might have a real civil war on your hands...assassinations, protests, mayhem I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeoConvict said:

Are you saying most women are bimbos? Their attraction to the bulge of a wallet is genetic, evolutionary. Rich men are best able to provide a secure setting for them to raise their brood.

You live in a past that never even existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump stabbed the nation in the back when he tried to get a foreign government to provide dirt on his opponent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, slideman said:

Trump stabbed the nation in the back when he tried to get a foreign government to provide dirt on his opponent

 

Correct. Trump is a traitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, slideman said:

Trump stabbed the nation in the back when he tried to get a foreign government to provide dirt on his opponent

Funny you equate criminal wrongdoing with political dirt. Trump didn't ask for pee tapes, he asked for a criminal investigation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

Funny you equate criminal wrongdoing with political dirt. Trump didn't ask for pee tapes, he asked for a criminal investigation. 

 

Are you pretending to be dumb? It's boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 9:39 AM, kking said:

So right now, you're justifying Hillary's usurpation of the DNC because Bernie wasn't "a democrat." How come he won 23 states in the Democratic primaries? How come he received millions upon millions in non-corporate donations? I'm not a Democrat, so the functions of the DNC aren't really my concern, but if I was, I would have been outraged at the treatment Bernie got.

Alright dude, this thing is drowning in vagueries and speculation. Before I dissect this, where do you obtain the redacted Mueller report? I would like to save a copy for posterity. But here we go, point by point:

1. [vague] "Trump was receptive." Not collusion.

2. How does the Trump campaign prevent Russia from doing something like that? Did Mueller find that that information was in any way solicited? If so, please source passage.

3. Internal polling is not collusion. "We polled at 44% in Ohio." What's the implication here? That Russia then used that information to determine where they spent part of their $100k Facebook ad budget?

4. Same as above.

5. [Vague] "Manafort expected..." That's nice. Not campaign collusion. Hillary expected she would win the election. Does that mean her corporate donors fudged the popular vote in her favour?

6. [Vague] "Appears to have accepted the offer." Again, if you're investigating a meeting that occurred, and you feel you have reason to believe that the purpose of the meeting was a specific thing, why do you say, "Appears to have." Why don't you just say, "Don Jr. met with Russian officials for the purpose of getting dirt on Hillary? Why do you qualifie and tippy-toe around what you're investigating? (Side note: Clinton is alleged to have done the same thing with Ukraine and Mr. Steele, and that one has an actual paper trail). 

7. [Vague and not collusion] Moving pieces around for potential upcoming policy and diplomatic strategies does not amount to collusion. 

8. [Vague and literally who?] "Russian military hackers MAY HAVE..." Again. This is totally speculative. This is anti-Trump people filling in the blanks. Also, how does the campaign PREVENT Russian military hackers from doing what they think will benefit themselves?

9. [VAGUE TO THE TITS] "which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers." Total nonsense speculation. Contacting Russians isn't collusion. Doing business in Russia isn't collusion. Having some toadie making "apparent" claims of having contacted Russians IS NOT COLLUSION.

10. Contacting Wikileaks is not a crime. Reprinting wikileaks is not a crime. BEING wikileaks is not a crime. Getting help from wikileaks is not a crime. Nor is it Russian collusion. 

11. See above.

12. Doing business in Russia is not election collusion. See point 9.

13. Okay...NOW we're talking. After 12 duds, we have something that at least RESEMBLES collusion. Okay. Setting up potential policy and diplomatic strategies is NOT collusion. As a matter of fact, you see this a lot in campaigns around the world where meetings are set up between current leaders of other countries and candidates running to lead their country. They establish a relationship, discuss ongoing matters, usually take a picture showing some sign of goodwill. This is not that unusual. This is diplomacy. What you would have to do is demonstrate that these meetings or communications lead to some sort of shared attempt to undermine the democratic process in the US. That's what must be proven. I've recently started comparing Democrats to McCarthyists because they're so rabidly anti-Russia and so blind to the normal workings of politics and diplomacy, that they're willing to sound the alarm whenever contact is made. That, largely, is why I still consider the Russian collusion story a hoax from day one. And there are several progressives and Democrats who agree. 

14. Again, this is diplomacy (really GOOD diplomacy, btw). Obama's sanctions were not justified; I suspect he was just trying to appease his ex-Sec. of State, who was absolutely devastated by the results of the election. It was a gesture of internal appeasement, not outside retaliation. 

(Side note: reread your own post and tell me if there's ANYTHING SPECIFIC MENTION OF MEDDLING WITH VOTES, VOTERS, THE ELECTORAL PROCESS ITSELF, COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEMOCRATS (which would undermine their access to the public or other resources), etc. because that's was collusion would mean in the context of the 2016 election). And friendly reminder to source the redacted Mueller report please.

Here was my response from weeks ago, to which you never replied.

.

41 minutes ago, slideman said:

I. Summary of Major Findings

The redacted Mueller Report documents a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. The Report documents the following actions (each of which is analyzed in detail in Part II):

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

[...]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, slideman said:

"extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

Requesting a criminal investigation can never be extortion. In fact we have treaties requiring such requests be honored with Ukraine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, slideman said:

"extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

 

How can it be extortion if the president himself didn't know about any of the conditions and didn't feel any pressure or threat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kking said:

Here was my response from weeks ago, to which you never replied.

.

 

 

It is only a summary

I would encourage you to follow the link and read the full report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


No holds barred chat

  • By Imgreatagain

    Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • By deezer shoove

    grgle


  • By rippy38

  • By Str8tEdge

    Where’s at @slideman?


  • By Robot88

    Hola


  • By teacher

    I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • By impartialobserver

    What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • By kfools

    Where does it say 2?


  • By kfools

    So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • By teacher

    How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • By Duck615

    Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • By kfools

    Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • By Imgreatagain

    Mine too. 


  • By Imgreatagain

    I thought it was my location.. 


  • By kfools

    Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • By Duck615

    OK thanks

     


  • Test


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...